June 13, 2005

Construction Industry Advancement Fund and CDTOA

Dear Trustees and CDTOA EC:

Following are some of the major issues your Industry Transportation Consultant has been dealing with to date.

Caltrans: Proposals in the works.

1) Reducibility for fixed loads has always been an issue with Caltrans and Industry. We are requesting that Caltrans review their current policy as it relates to the changes to the way business / our Industry has changed.
A recent situation took place that Caltrans required a member's machine that was entering into California from the Arizona / California border to make unnecessary and costly fabrications. When the sand screen arrived at Glendale, Arizona from South Dakota, the manufacturer contacted Caltrans. All fixed loads require an inspection report to be issued, which is necessary to obtain a Caltrans permit for transport in California. Our member was waiting on this load for a project in the Palm Springs area. Caltrans met the transport company at the Arizona Port of Entry and inspected the new machine only to inform them that they needed another 2,000 pounds of weight on their drive axle before a permit could be issued. The Caltrans inspector insisted that they could not add any additional weight to compensate the problem. Caltrans made it very clear that the manufacturer had to either move the kingpin or suspension. We contacted Caltrans and there seemed to be differences of opinion among the Caltrans inspectors as to whether there was a policy that even addresses this issue. We contacted Caltrans management explaining the situation and Caltrans made an arbitrary and capricious decision, which forced the manufacturer to make an unnecessary modification to a brand new piece of equipment. We expressed to Caltrans that they held this customer hostage at the border which left him no choice but to make the change. The Manufacturer's concern was losing the sale due to the load being delayed by three days to the job and couldn't afford to wait anther day. I told Caltrans, they had no authority to require such a change and have since submitted a bill for the entire cost in the amount of $6,559.
We are currently awaiting a response from Caltrans.

2) Annual Permits for 7, 8 and 9-axle: We have recently submitted our bridge data reflecting the structures that are going to be weight problems for Caltrans review. Based on the information that we have supplied to Caltrans, there should be no reason that an annual permit shouldn't be issued in Southern California with a possibly a route or two being restricted. Our original point was, why restrict the entire state if we have certain areas that have structure problems. We are continuing discussion with Caltrans.

3) Original Permit Policy: We have submitted an addendum to our original proposal addressing that a company could use the annual or repetitive permit in one or more vehicles by making copies. The vehicle would have to be of the same dimensions as the original permit. We are already issued multi-trailer combination annual by localities and would we like to see Caltrans issue the same.

4) Kingpin measurements are not uniform between State and Federal regulations. Federal regulation measure from the kingpin to the center the rear axle, if single, or the center of a group of rear axles. State measurement requirements are from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle. We are requesting a review of this regulation.

City of Los Angeles:

Bureau of Street Services has forwarded the Board Report that we have been working on for the past couple years for final review and sign-off before it goes to the Board of Public Works for approval. We are expecting to see this on the calendar within the next couple weeks.

County of San Bernardino:

We continue to request a review in summer hours Restrictions. "Overweight travel is permitted on County Desert Roads from sunrise until 10:00 am only, from June 1st through October 15th".

The county is also working toward a similar on-line permit program, which will allow permits to be obtained 24/7. The county is expecting to be on-line by mid July.

Town of Apple Valley: I was contacted by a member that reported the city has started putting up "NO TRUCKS" sign as per the approval of Town Council. The Route that has been restricted was from Stoddard Wells Rd E/O 15 Frwy. This was the most direct route to and from the Cemex Plant. The route the Town would like Industry to take adds an additional 4 miles per trip.
New Town Truck Route policy.
" · Eliminate Apple Valley Road between Highway 18 and Bear Valley Road as a truck route.
" · Eliminate Central Road between Waalew and Johnson Roads as a truck route.
" · Add Dale Evans Parkway between I-15 and Waalew Road as a truck route.
" · Add Waalew Road between Dale Evans Parkway and Central Road as a truck route.
" · Allow an option for trucks to cross a town boundary, instead of going to a truck route if the travel distance on restricted streets is less than if going to a truck route.

Riverside County:

On May 31st, we met with Mojahed Salamas, permit engineer, and discussed 24 / 7 travel and how we can implement it within the county. There are concerns that with the growth that Riverside County is experiencing and continues to expect, they need to keep these loads out of the peak hour traffic. They encourage truck traffic at night, providing that we're not loading and unloading in residential areas. We expressed that most jobsites that are noise sensitive already have jobsite curfews in place. We are looking to keep through traffic moving and not restrict across-the-board for noise. The projects that we're picking up from or delivering to, are for the most part commercial / industrial areas, with the exception of some residential. We explained that when were traveling through any jurisdiction were not making anymore noise than the legal trucks and they are not being restricted.

Riverside County - Orange County

Over Dimensional Permit Policy meetings, June 7th and 8th
We recently completed two separate Over Dimensional Permit Policy meetings to advice the county and the cities within each county the new changes that have been implemented. We discussed Caltrans new policy changes, such as 24 / 7 travel and the proposal that are currently under review. We expressed the need for expediting permits and that our industry doesn't have 72, 48 or even 24 notices. When a piece of equipment breaks down, not to be able to replace it immediately could mean the difference of an operator, the crew or the entire job shutting down the next day. We continue to have cities that are closed every other Friday or will not allow faxing of permits. We discussed how annual permits are a critical part of transporting equipment on a day to day basis, because of these reasons.
The city and county representative were very receptive to our needs and the meetings went very well for everyone. The meeting was very well attended by both localities and industry.
We will be scheduling meetings in Los Angeles and San Bernardino County for September. If you would like to participate, please let us know.

City of La Quinta: June 7th, the City Council approved the annual permit fee of $90, which will set the stage for the next Council meeting to approve the issuance of annual permits. The Public Works Department is hoping to have this on calendar in the next couple of weeks.

The County of Orange: We are going to be scheduling a meeting with several cities and the county to demonstrate the on-line permitting program that Los Angeles County has so kindly offered to localities. This meeting will be scheduled in mid July at the City of Santa Ana.
This would allow permits to be issued 24 / 7, a significant benefit for our industry.

Insurance Requirements for Issuance of Permits:

We have been contacted by many industry members to investigate the continuing problem with agencies having and/or requiring unreasonable insurance requirements. If you obtain a permit with the Caltrans, you are not required to show proof of insurance. The County of Riverside also agrees. This problem has become uncontrollable because each locality is requiring a certificate of insurance to obtain a permit to move through their jurisdiction.
The trucking industry already has to show proof of insurance to obtain a Motor Carrier Permit. The fees that are paid through the Motor Carrier Permit are then distributed to the cities for travel through their jurisdiction. This is referenced in the Revenue and Taxation Code section 7232. You have to have a Motor Carrier Permit to have authority to operate in California. If you insurance expires, DMV is immediately notified and your operating authority is denied.
CVC 35782
(b) The Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require the posting of a bond as a condition of the issuance of a permit, except that a requirement of extra insurance or other financial security may be imposed as a condition for a permit for unusually large or heavy loads that pose a substantial risk to public facilities.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require proof of financial responsibility in an amount greater than that required for compliance with Section 16500.5 as a condition of the permit, and shall accept evidence of financial responsibility that complies with Section 16020.
The problem continues to grow with everyone wanting something different. C.V.C. 16500.5 references that a commercial vehicles shall maintain proof of financial responsibility in the amount required by the director. The county and cities requirements range from auto liability cert., general liability minimums of $1,000,000 plus in some cases, the city and employees to be named additionally insured, on their forms, list license number for each vehicle, workman's compensation and on and on. We are only making a pick up, delivering an item or driving through, not doing work in the city. The smaller companies are required to pay for these extra endorsements, as much as $50 for each cert.
We would agree that an "unusually large or heavy load" would require additional insurance due to its size. This is also referred to in 35795 Permit Fees, a city/county may charge extra for engineering investigation, escorts ,tree trimming, or other services for "unusually large or heavy load". Caltrans' variance program addresses "unusually large or heavy loads" are loads that exceed 17' high, 16' wide, 135' long and/or 250,000 pounds. The loads that our industry transports do not routinely exceed these dimensions and shouldn't be burdened by these unnecessary requirements.
This has become an issue and we are pursuing for a change.

City of Orange: Haul Route Permit

We were recently contacted by an industry member that was going to do a project in the City of Orange. The job consisted of approximately 130,000 yards of dirt that was going to be coming from Chapman College and being delivered to the 22 Frwy project. The shortest and direct route to the job was approximately 1½ miles. The city is requiring the dirt hauler to use a significantly longer route, which takes the trucks north and adds approximately 8 additional miles to the haul. If the city continues to hold to their original route, this adds an additional 86,000 truck miles to the project. Southern California already has the worst air quality in the country and then we have these unnecessary vehicle miles added by government fiat. AQMD is holding our industry's feet to the fire and they need to hold localities equally accountable. Before a city requires trucks to take longer routes, maybe they should be required to do an environmental impact study?
We have contacted the city requesting that we take the shortest and most direct route as defined in the California Vehicle Code

The City of Perris:

We were contacted by a member that was being required to travel in excess of 8.5 miles extra per trip. The shortest and most reasonable route was 3.5 miles. The member was being required to travel an additional 5.5 miles to the haul. The city is reviewing this issue.

Future Legislative request being researched.

1) Excess Insurance requirements

2) Beacon lights requirements
C.V.C. 25270. Any pilot car required by the permit referred to in Section 35780 or 35790, or any vehicle or combination of vehicles subject to the permit if specified in the permit, shall be equipped with flashing amber warning lights to the front, sides or rear. The pilot car and any vehicles required by the permit to have flashing amber warning lights, shall display the flashing amber warning lights while actually engaged in the movement described in the permit. The warning lamps shall be removed or covered with opaque material whenever the pilot car is not escorting the movement described in the permit.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant

Cc: John Hakel, AGC Jim Burton, SCCA
Gary Futral, ECA Seth Hammond, MCOG
Richard Lambros, BIA Lee Brown, CDTOA
Aimee Shook, DCA